From rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org Tue Feb 1 21:13:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FF93A6CF1 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:13:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fbf7U+hc+zQ for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from whataboutbob.org (netblock-72-25-108-170.dslextreme.com [72.25.108.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99583A67D3 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BD38732167 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.75] (unknown [192.168.3.24]) by whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBE3B87320CB for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:16:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D48E8AD.3000100@whataboutbob.org> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:16:29 -0800 From: rstangarone-ietf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rohc@ietf.org References: <8BFE2075-5B98-4B58-B66D-0A8F3B9C70DA@nokia.com> <3FE00204-1925-45D7-B04A-BCAAFB9CF8F3@tzi.org> <95BB5766-B716-48E3-9D52-70E9B3C9DDCB@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <95BB5766-B716-48E3-9D52-70E9B3C9DDCB@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 05:13:13 -0000 I agree with Carsten's assessment. Bob On 02/01/2011 12:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > Thanks, Carsten. I'll wait a few days to give others a chance to chime in, but your suggestions seem reasonable to me. > > On 2011-1-31, at 21:02, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> On Jan 31, 2011, at 13:21, Lars Eggert wrote: >> >>> Please discuss these errata on this list. >> >> Here is my assessment. >> Thanks for bringing these up! >> >> Gruesse, Carsten >> >> >> * RFC 3816: >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=737 >> -- many typos, some opportunity for editorial improvement >> -- very little risk for misinterpretation, except maybe for 2f >> -> Hold for Update >> (The large number of errata leaves the document in a somwhat sorry >> state. It might be worthwhile to look at the implementation status of >> RFC 3816 to assess the need for a re-spin.) >> >> * RFC 5795: >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2107 >> -- opportunity for minor editorial improvement >> -- no risk >> -> Hold for Update >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2108 >> -- errata submission simply misreads text (reads verb as noun) >> -- could be improved editorially anyway (but not in the way proposed) >> -- no risk >> -> Reject, but make note to improve this text in next update >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2109 >> -- proposed change is somewhat pedantic; >> -- it actually might reduce readability for some readers >> -- no risk >> -> Reject >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2110 >> "RFC Errata Report" >> -- punctuation fix (typo) >> -- no risk >> -> Hold for Update >> >> * RFC 5857 >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2274 >> -- editorial fix required: the wording on top of page 4 can be misread >> (the section reference parenthesis is about the new Notify Message >> Type value, not about the channel parameters carried by this >> message type). >> -- also: this (and another) reference that should point to section 5 >> (IANA considerations) incorrectly say "Section 4" (they should not >> say 3.1.2 as the errata states either). >> -- annoying, but very little risk of misunderstanding >> -> Hold for Update >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2275 >> -- typo >> -- no risk >> -> Hold for Update >> >> * RFC 5858 >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2276 >> -- typos >> -- no risk >> -> Hold for Update >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2277 >> -- idea for a very desirable editorial improvement >> -- can probably be improved on further >> -- even without that improvement, minimal risk of misinterpretation >> -> Hold for Update >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc From carl.knutsson@effnet.com Wed Feb 2 01:30:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A3D3A713F for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:30:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tnbk6XNPG0Lg for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.levonline.com (lists.levonline.com [217.70.33.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC6A3A7138 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.levonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C801A26814F for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:33:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists.levonline.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.levonline.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNqVivemYSdY for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:33:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from traktor2.skognet.levonline.com (webhotel.fordon.levonline.com [217.70.32.2]) by lists.levonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3471B2681F0 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:33:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.101.21] (c-b10171d5.04-205-6c756c1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [213.113.1.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by traktor2.skognet.levonline.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p129Xjdc004214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:33:45 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4924F4.2000402@effnet.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:33:40 +0100 From: Carl Knutsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rohc@ietf.org References: <8BFE2075-5B98-4B58-B66D-0A8F3B9C70DA@nokia.com> <3FE00204-1925-45D7-B04A-BCAAFB9CF8F3@tzi.org> <95BB5766-B716-48E3-9D52-70E9B3C9DDCB@nokia.com> <4D48E8AD.3000100@whataboutbob.org> In-Reply-To: <4D48E8AD.3000100@whataboutbob.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:30:32 -0000 +1 for Carsten's assessment. Cheers, /Calle On 02/02/2011 06:16 AM, rstangarone-ietf wrote: > I agree with Carsten's assessment. > > Bob > > On 02/01/2011 12:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: >> Thanks, Carsten. I'll wait a few days to give others a chance to chime in, but your suggestions seem reasonable to me. >> >> On 2011-1-31, at 21:02, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >>> On Jan 31, 2011, at 13:21, Lars Eggert wrote: >>> >>>> Please discuss these errata on this list. >>> >>> Here is my assessment. >>> Thanks for bringing these up! >>> >>> Gruesse, Carsten >>> >>> >>> * RFC 3816: >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=737 >>> -- many typos, some opportunity for editorial improvement >>> -- very little risk for misinterpretation, except maybe for 2f >>> -> Hold for Update >>> (The large number of errata leaves the document in a somwhat sorry >>> state. It might be worthwhile to look at the implementation status of >>> RFC 3816 to assess the need for a re-spin.) >>> >>> * RFC 5795: >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2107 >>> -- opportunity for minor editorial improvement >>> -- no risk >>> -> Hold for Update >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2108 >>> -- errata submission simply misreads text (reads verb as noun) >>> -- could be improved editorially anyway (but not in the way proposed) >>> -- no risk >>> -> Reject, but make note to improve this text in next update >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2109 >>> -- proposed change is somewhat pedantic; >>> -- it actually might reduce readability for some readers >>> -- no risk >>> -> Reject >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2110 >>> "RFC Errata Report" >>> -- punctuation fix (typo) >>> -- no risk >>> -> Hold for Update >>> >>> * RFC 5857 >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2274 >>> -- editorial fix required: the wording on top of page 4 can be misread >>> (the section reference parenthesis is about the new Notify Message >>> Type value, not about the channel parameters carried by this >>> message type). >>> -- also: this (and another) reference that should point to section 5 >>> (IANA considerations) incorrectly say "Section 4" (they should not >>> say 3.1.2 as the errata states either). >>> -- annoying, but very little risk of misunderstanding >>> -> Hold for Update >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2275 >>> -- typo >>> -- no risk >>> -> Hold for Update >>> >>> * RFC 5858 >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2276 >>> -- typos >>> -- no risk >>> -> Hold for Update >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2277 >>> -- idea for a very desirable editorial improvement >>> -- can probably be improved on further >>> -- even without that improvement, minimal risk of misinterpretation >>> -> Hold for Update >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rohc mailing list >> Rohc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc From sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil Wed Feb 2 08:40:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4813A6C3D for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:40:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnOkC+OuXc5v for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil (gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil [138.163.0.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20ADD3A6D7B for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:40:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nawesdnieg06v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.0.0.163]) by gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6872); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:31:28 -0800 Received: from nawesdnieb13v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.0.10.79]) by nawesdnieg06v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:44:11 -0800 Received: from nawespsceb01v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.1.120.15]) by nawesdnieb13v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:44:10 -0800 Received: from nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.1.120.21]) by nawespsceb01v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:44:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:44:10 -0700 Message-ID: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3576@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs Thread-Index: AcvC+GpF0Jf5RI9GTqmF9cFFygAynw== From: "Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2011 16:44:10.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A5CB690:01CBC2F8] Subject: Re: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:46:32 -0000 Hi Lars, Is it possible to include an errata as Calle proposed here: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg05960.html Specifically, "I would like to change the text in 6.6.11 to say 'for = each IPv4 header' instead of 'for each IP header'." That issue has been a great source of confusion for my team, and the = suggested change would quell our concerns. Thank you. Regards, Sasha On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Lars Eggert = wrote: > Hi, > > several errata have been submitted against ROHC RFCs: = http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=3D2&area_acronym=3D= tsv&wg_acronym=3Drohc&presentation=3Dtable > > The TSV ADs would like to enlist the help of the RFC authors and the = broader ROHC community in order to determine how to process these, i.e., = which should be "verified", "held" or "rejected". > > Please discuss these errata on this list. > > Lars > > PS: IESG guidelines on errata handling: > > In order to help you determine the correct handling for the errata > in step (4), the IESG has come up with a few guidelines: > > 1. Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment > problems or significant confusion should be Approved. > > 2. Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an > implementation or deployment problem should be Hold for Document > Update. > > 3. Errata on obsolete RFCs should be treated the same as errata on > RFCs that are not obsolete where there is strong evidence that > some people are still making use of the related technology. > > 4. Trivial grammar corrections should be Hold for Document Update. > > 5. Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to > implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update. > > 6. Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things > read better should be Hold for Document Update. > > 7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that > might be different from the intended consensus when the document > was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or > Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment. > Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus, > or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear > situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update. > > 8. Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an > IANA registration procedure, to something that might be different > from the intended consensus when the document was approved should > be Rejected. > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc > > From lars.eggert@nokia.com Wed Feb 2 18:16:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0461A3A67A5 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:16:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.674 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.674 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SI4dq+wjd-rz for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14103A659A for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p132K7rq027541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:20:09 +0200 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.5 at fit.nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-31-535536765; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Lars Eggert In-Reply-To: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3576@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:11:56 +0200 Message-Id: <1FA12F82-DF37-4ED7-8202-5118309610E5@nokia.com> References: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3576@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> To: sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:11:56 +0200 (EET) X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: rohc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:16:52 -0000 --Apple-Mail-31-535536765 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On 2011-2-2, at 18:44, sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil wrote: > Is it possible to include an errata as Calle proposed here: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg05960.html yes, but not by email. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php and = report it using the web form. It'll then undergo the review process. Lars > Specifically, "I would like to change the text in 6.6.11 to say 'for = each IPv4 header' instead of 'for each IP header'." > That issue has been a great source of confusion for my team, and the = suggested change would quell our concerns. > Thank you. >=20 > Regards, > Sasha >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Lars Eggert = wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> several errata have been submitted against ROHC RFCs: = http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=3D2&area_acronym=3D= tsv&wg_acronym=3Drohc&presentation=3Dtable >>=20 >> The TSV ADs would like to enlist the help of the RFC authors and the = broader ROHC community in order to determine how to process these, i.e., = which should be "verified", "held" or "rejected". >>=20 >> Please discuss these errata on this list. >>=20 >> Lars >>=20 >> PS: IESG guidelines on errata handling: >>=20 >> In order to help you determine the correct handling for the errata >> in step (4), the IESG has come up with a few guidelines: >>=20 >> 1. Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment >> problems or significant confusion should be Approved. >>=20 >> 2. Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an >> implementation or deployment problem should be Hold for Document >> Update. >>=20 >> 3. Errata on obsolete RFCs should be treated the same as errata on >> RFCs that are not obsolete where there is strong evidence that >> some people are still making use of the related technology. >>=20 >> 4. Trivial grammar corrections should be Hold for Document Update. >>=20 >> 5. Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to >> implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update. >>=20 >> 6. Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things >> read better should be Hold for Document Update. >>=20 >> 7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that >> might be different from the intended consensus when the document >> was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or >> Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment. >> Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus, >> or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear >> situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update. >>=20 >> 8. Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an >> IANA registration procedure, to something that might be different >> from the intended consensus when the document was approved should >> be Rejected. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Rohc mailing list >> Rohc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc --Apple-Mail-31-535536765 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMRjCCBVAw ggQ4oAMCAQICEGxdPUZzCwUJ8KBiJwH+bYgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMDEwMTUwMDAwMDBaFw0x MTEwMTUyMzU5NTlaMIIBEzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9r aWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAwolKEyOz/NQZJJlw0x9XBS9W wCmabdY1fXpbWSdcaJiEWhQpRzSIC/pgIwCgaUW9g3JsWioXCawyjUVeg8xR42sR690f4z+OPAUm 3jokZxsuRaGX6fuPkPQomYAGz7htUHws/8FZIU+4dciETQf4vF5ptitJ+QZCVRCTLqisj6mG/kG4 65Op3G5/YZF9F/a390LdhuRP6vdY2Y+dqm8LDa0zmENPpoE98u1pIZGqCcnskN/nNBtEPd+a4lNh ZSGnPuL4XCUSJYR9NB7FAYBvi5N7LSWHR3fspwa5EgpXynJcsLzaLA0iGfjFOBYFxul/07edmyw4 FIXuCIkaMDUfEwIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcX ATAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIF oDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDov L2luZGMxZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3Js MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAlSTzUKqa3ZouKWFQfIJ+4l/KsztPnY4Onwzt8lqAmeiFPqOmf kLTXbXDKtC6caFadNtyHpnsmQFFKXwhe5Z9/AaVSwryu6F9992DzYLp3j8PE0DSU0wmpUXUtp+rz TFqJRkzB8RCBoq/TPBmkMPr68qB0TkU3dbYiVIvscOt1MRkdHiwG4wKQLyCf8XRRWqmMY6lbun7g kiEWiris5StGKRvE5+e1SrcdnoZxIKQFF7Etr+4ftClrsDQWX9nRCEjYcmz4y/deq+HU8ylBaKZE 0ZJmcnYlAaD50OYWi0ckGDnKYyeMUEtCZJSV0otm2LqyIUAu9WPv/GNHt2ntjnUaMIIG7jCCBdag AwIBAgIQcRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTow OAYDVQQLEzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5 MUUwQwYDVQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g QXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBO ZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJp U2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6Zvg SU6Lb9UB0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHs EnMhjfXcMM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO 4YM/d/mZ//6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSy riMGZSalJ1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCC ArUwNAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20w EgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUH AgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWdu LmNvbS9wY2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgw VhYJaW1hZ2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDov L2xvZ28udmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQ cml2YXRlTGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYD VR0jBIHpMIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4x HzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlT aWduLCBJbmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaE VIULAM+vOEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlM JBq6WaSHO3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKv YLMVirOVnDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDR yxTWcVibvtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy +kgOZY5JyNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/ wYIxggSLMIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMu MR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2Ug YXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBO b3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2Ny aWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBsXT1GcwsFCfCgYicB/m2IMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJ AzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDIwMjE4MTE1NlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkE MRYEFAmZ2qm+DNsViomPQX5XmFLJP0xAMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEGxdPUZzCwUJ8KBiJwH+ bYgwggEFBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlT aWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJt cyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMV UGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBsXT1GcwsFCfCgYicB/m2IMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIB ABmMz/O0REwzTcIhIKfs+6705xlb0xDQrFxGBBorgQVmt3Z6Oo7OGNQ/Gz6m42+EQxozSJQ6am/N XLgrP/BSvjtmv1No7kn7VyIssdgyBXbYNLV+7DOonivg3DOoXd6T8iUI67NP1PwcMoj5IfPNvmjT C/gGl1RO0pVx/LaqqPFe2V5+ajHEDMVUQwtEOTIdNh7jXYnzSOhBIAx1NDy6JpIJHfrrPQgnzxaF hvIFh1jTQG4FWTWaldqw67qzHe6hVt2f98Q5b/MCt+lwOn56DbVjOEdLaxHOJ6n62nFPzcWLPlcf Tcs0xQHyHyMMem6NOnwPIapwx7B6BlNtod2og1EAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-31-535536765-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Feb 3 00:41:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AF83A689C for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jdQ55N5eDctl for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:40:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BE53A6897 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:40:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p138i5kU001618; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:44:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p5489FC97.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.252.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCD0B2A0; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:44:05 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <1FA12F82-DF37-4ED7-8202-5118309610E5@nokia.com> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:44:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3576@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> <1FA12F82-DF37-4ED7-8202-5118309610E5@nokia.com> To: Lars Eggert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: rohc@ietf.org, sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil Subject: Re: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:41:01 -0000 On Feb 2, 2011, at 19:11, Lars Eggert wrote: > yes, but not by email. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php and = report it using the web form. It'll then undergo the review process. Yeah, in the referenced mail from September 2010, Carl Knutsson said he = was going to do that based on Sasha's input -- nudge, nudge. Gruesse, Carsten From carl.knutsson@effnet.com Thu Feb 3 03:16:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D87A3A68E7 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 03:16:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQUJFVN7MVqC for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 03:16:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.levonline.com (lists.levonline.com [217.70.33.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FACF3A6885 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 03:16:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.levonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7305268393 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:19:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists.levonline.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.levonline.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75Hg3aYQGEVD for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:19:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from traktor2.skognet.levonline.com (webhotel.fordon.levonline.com [217.70.32.2]) by lists.levonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD92C2681C2 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:19:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.101.21] (c-b10171d5.04-205-6c756c1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [213.113.1.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by traktor2.skognet.levonline.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p13BJUTh014056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:19:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4A8F3D.6040509@effnet.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:19:25 +0100 From: Carl Knutsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rohc@ietf.org References: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3576@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> <1FA12F82-DF37-4ED7-8202-5118309610E5@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [rohc] Errata against ROHC RFCs X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:16:14 -0000 Sorry about the delay Sasha. I should have done this months ago. I will do as soon as I pressed the send button. cheers, /Calle On 02/03/2011 09:44 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Feb 2, 2011, at 19:11, Lars Eggert wrote: > >> yes, but not by email. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php and report it using the web form. It'll then undergo the review process. > > Yeah, in the referenced mail from September 2010, Carl Knutsson said he was going to do that based on Sasha's input -- nudge, nudge. > > Gruesse, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu Feb 3 04:18:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AF53A6947 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:18:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCCUo0VIGJoc for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352A43A6946 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A4749E06B4; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:22:00 -0800 (PST) To: ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com, kristofer.sandlund@ericsson.com, ietfdbh@comcast.net, lars.eggert@nokia.com, carl.knutsson@effnet.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20110203122200.A4749E06B4@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:22:00 -0800 (PST) Cc: rohc@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:18:39 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=2703 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Carl Knutsson Section: 6.6.11 Original Text ------------- o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the compressible header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. Corrected Text -------------- o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header except the innermost in the compressible header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost header is an IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. Notes ----- There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the document. There are two control fields related to IP-ID behavior, ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is always IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This makes it impossible to include ip_id_behavior_outer when calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. Furthermore, since the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no sense to include it in the crc calculation. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) -------------------------------------- Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite Publication Date : April 2008 Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Robust Header Compression Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From lars.eggert@nokia.com Thu Feb 3 05:07:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F443A68FD for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zAZKQzZ8tS5 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:07:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CA43A68F8 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:07:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p13DA8fT013220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:10:09 +0200 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.5 at fit.nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-47-602751659; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Lars Eggert In-Reply-To: <20110203122200.A4749E06B4@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:52:11 +0200 Message-Id: References: <20110203122200.A4749E06B4@rfc-editor.org> To: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:52:16 +0200 (EET) X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: kristofer.sandlund@ericsson.com, David Harrington , ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:07:30 -0000 --Apple-Mail-47-602751659 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community consensus is to = approve this? On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: >=20 > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, > "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, = IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D5225&eid=3D2703 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Carl Knutsson >=20 > Section: 6.6.11 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- > o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the compressible >=20 > header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet >=20 > consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- > o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header except the >=20 > innermost in the compressible header chain starting from the = outermost=20 >=20 > header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >=20 >=20 >=20 > o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost header is an=20= >=20 > IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of = zeroes. >=20 > Notes > ----- > There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the document. There = are two control fields related to IP-ID behavior, = ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the = ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is always = IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This makes it impossible to = include ip_id_behavior_outer when calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. = Furthermore, since the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no = sense to include it in the crc calculation. >=20 > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) > -------------------------------------- > Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): = Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite > Publication Date : April 2008 > Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Robust Header Compression > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG --Apple-Mail-47-602751659 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMRjCCBVAw ggQ4oAMCAQICEGxdPUZzCwUJ8KBiJwH+bYgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMDEwMTUwMDAwMDBaFw0x MTEwMTUyMzU5NTlaMIIBEzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9r aWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAwolKEyOz/NQZJJlw0x9XBS9W wCmabdY1fXpbWSdcaJiEWhQpRzSIC/pgIwCgaUW9g3JsWioXCawyjUVeg8xR42sR690f4z+OPAUm 3jokZxsuRaGX6fuPkPQomYAGz7htUHws/8FZIU+4dciETQf4vF5ptitJ+QZCVRCTLqisj6mG/kG4 65Op3G5/YZF9F/a390LdhuRP6vdY2Y+dqm8LDa0zmENPpoE98u1pIZGqCcnskN/nNBtEPd+a4lNh ZSGnPuL4XCUSJYR9NB7FAYBvi5N7LSWHR3fspwa5EgpXynJcsLzaLA0iGfjFOBYFxul/07edmyw4 FIXuCIkaMDUfEwIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcX ATAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIF oDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDov L2luZGMxZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3Js MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAlSTzUKqa3ZouKWFQfIJ+4l/KsztPnY4Onwzt8lqAmeiFPqOmf kLTXbXDKtC6caFadNtyHpnsmQFFKXwhe5Z9/AaVSwryu6F9992DzYLp3j8PE0DSU0wmpUXUtp+rz TFqJRkzB8RCBoq/TPBmkMPr68qB0TkU3dbYiVIvscOt1MRkdHiwG4wKQLyCf8XRRWqmMY6lbun7g kiEWiris5StGKRvE5+e1SrcdnoZxIKQFF7Etr+4ftClrsDQWX9nRCEjYcmz4y/deq+HU8ylBaKZE 0ZJmcnYlAaD50OYWi0ckGDnKYyeMUEtCZJSV0otm2LqyIUAu9WPv/GNHt2ntjnUaMIIG7jCCBdag AwIBAgIQcRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTow OAYDVQQLEzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5 MUUwQwYDVQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g QXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBO ZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJp U2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6Zvg SU6Lb9UB0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHs EnMhjfXcMM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO 4YM/d/mZ//6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSy riMGZSalJ1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCC ArUwNAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20w EgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUH AgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWdu LmNvbS9wY2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgw VhYJaW1hZ2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDov L2xvZ28udmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQ cml2YXRlTGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYD VR0jBIHpMIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4x HzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlT aWduLCBJbmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaE VIULAM+vOEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlM JBq6WaSHO3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKv YLMVirOVnDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDR yxTWcVibvtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy +kgOZY5JyNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/ wYIxggSLMIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMu MR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2Ug YXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBO b3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2Ny aWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBsXT1GcwsFCfCgYicB/m2IMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJ AzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDIwMzEyNTIxMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkE MRYEFNNEDLREOoaXZ1AWidovM0BSXgB6MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEGxdPUZzCwUJ8KBiJwH+ bYgwggEFBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlT aWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJt cyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMV UGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBsXT1GcwsFCfCgYicB/m2IMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIB AL/YncCH4i98RJ4Y32Q1f5YDFNbxRzWjpdvoYzmaYprs4jQ3Ms+Oh7UWXnLIMCIpcauadTJ8W0kg rbuJ9fCSS7qwCr+9kY8BEe0KOrUW21eeXJ0k2GKlNzpCy+RrF0qdIK1Q6B8RvaAJZDd2jnEY2oJ8 /6rx0GpBtktnRQSMc+Jqj94G+/8rl9qDpc4ZvlABDylaUt813bi9p25zzmklh2v+FH07cq7bTt9I 5h7CEg09Y68teDp71UvVxunwInDIeyhZyAZE2RmzHu3zCWPhRTi6WLHqo6rkWXLwzRoqDCVgawEv PZOxhgXVX6ljA81rMKvIwd07BicFjRLeE2taWPEAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-47-602751659-- From carl.knutsson@effnet.com Thu Feb 3 05:32:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33773A694C for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:32:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zFYzMTioc04K for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists.levonline.com (lists.levonline.com [217.70.33.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A973A6919 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.levonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EF5268566 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:36:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists.levonline.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.levonline.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXDWTpUdmzcW for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:36:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from traktor1.fordonnet.levonline.com (webhotel.fordon.levonline.com [217.70.32.2]) by lists.levonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E796626810E; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:35:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.101.21] (c-b10171d5.04-205-6c756c1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [213.113.1.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by traktor1.fordonnet.levonline.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p13DZxcj003052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:35:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4AAF39.5050405@effnet.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:35:53 +0100 From: Carl Knutsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lars Eggert References: <20110203122200.A4749E06B4@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kristofer.sandlund@ericsson.com, rohc@ietf.org, David Harrington , ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:32:42 -0000 Lars, others, I have had an on-list discussion with Sasha and an off-list with Kristofer and I have come up with the suggested correction. The actual details of the suggestion in the errata haven't been discussed. So I would like people to review the errata. Comments from the authors would also be appreciated. There are three things that I'd like to point out here: 1) There is no ip_id_behavior control field in the FN of RFC 5225. Only ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. 2) Not to include the control field for outer IPv6 headers is the actual bug fix. There does not exist any ip_id_behavior_outer control field in the FN for ipv6 (it does for ipv4). 3) Excluding the control field for the innermost IPv6 header may be considered a change and not a correction, but since the whole business with the ip_id_behavior is not crystal clear... So especially number 3) is up for discussion and also my suggestion for the Corrected Text. cheers, /Calle On 02/03/2011 01:52 PM, Lars Eggert wrote: > Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community consensus is to approve this? > > On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: > >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, >> "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=2703 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Carl Knutsson >> >> Section: 6.6.11 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the compressible >> >> header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet >> >> consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header except the >> >> innermost in the compressible header chain starting from the outermost >> >> header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >> >> >> >> o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost header is an >> >> IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the document. There are two control fields related to IP-ID behavior, ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is always IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This makes it impossible to include ip_id_behavior_outer when calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. Furthermore, since the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no sense to include it in the crc calculation. >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite >> Publication Date : April 2008 >> Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Robust Header Compression >> Area : Transport >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG > From kristofer.sandlund@ericsson.com Thu Feb 3 05:23:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B45C3A693B for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:23:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gMuKELawRWMW for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F573A6942 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:23:18 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-e7-4d4aad1051fb Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 80.C4.23694.01DAA4D4; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:26:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.239]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:26:40 +0100 From: Kristofer Sandlund To: Lars Eggert , "rohc@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:26:39 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) Thread-Index: AcvDo8hN/Wkrs96eSgClxicXPgqmHgAAYbaQ Message-ID: <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD1013E9FCFE83@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <20110203122200.A4749E06B4@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:33:45 -0800 Cc: David Harrington Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:25:34 -0000 Ongoing discussion? I'm no longer subscribed to the rohc list (and I'm quit= e sure my co-author doesn't read it either), so I don't know of anything th= at has been discussed there. But I have previously discussed the below issue with Calle and I agree with= his suggested update. /Kristofer at den 3 februari 2011 13:52, Lars Eggert wrote : > Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community > consensus is to approve this? >=20 > On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > The following errata report has been submitted for > > RFC5225, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): > > Profiles for=20 > RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". > >=20 > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D5225&eid=3D2703 > >=20 > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Carl Knutsson > >=20 > > Section: 6.6.11 > >=20 > > Original Text > > ------------- > > o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the > > compressible=20 > >=20 > > header chain starting from the outermost header.=20 > > Each octet=20 > >=20 > > consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. > >=20 > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header > > except the=20 > >=20 > > innermost in the compressible header chain starting > > from=20 > the outermost > >=20 > > header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 > > MSBs=20 > of zeroes. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost > header is an > >=20 > > IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with > > 6=20 > MSBs of zeroes. > >=20 > > Notes > > ----- > > There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the > document. There are two control fields related to IP-ID > behavior, ip_id_behavior_innermost and > ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the > ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is > always IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This > makes it impossible to include ip_id_behavior_outer when > calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. Furthermore, since > the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no > sense to include it in the crc calculation.=20 > >=20 > > Instructions: > > ------------- > > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If > > necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it > > should be verified or rejected. When a decision is > > reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to > > change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 > >=20 > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : RObust Header Compression Version > > 2=20 > (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite > > Publication Date : April 2008 > > Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Robust Header Compression > > Area : Transport > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG= From sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil Thu Feb 3 08:15:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD363A6A14 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:15:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.542 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fcPdlUnlgbum for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil (gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil [138.163.0.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171793A6A13 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:15:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nawesdnieg05v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.0.0.161]) by gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6872); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:06:03 -0800 Received: from nawesdnieb10v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.0.10.27]) by nawesdnieg05v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:18:46 -0800 Received: from nawespsceb02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.1.120.16]) by nawesdnieb10v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:18:46 -0800 Received: from nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.1.120.21]) by nawespsceb02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:18:46 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:18:46 -0700 Message-ID: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3579@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) Thread-Index: AcvDvghACN5KS7jWTzWZs/EKa4nCEw== From: "Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2011 16:18:46.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[084A7110:01CBC3BE] Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:15:25 -0000 Calle's correction looks good to me. Thank you, Calle. -Sasha On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Carl Knutsson = wrote: > Lars, others, > > I have had an on-list discussion with Sasha and an off-list with > Kristofer and I have come up with the suggested correction. The actual > details of the suggestion in the errata haven't been discussed. So I > would like people to review the errata. Comments from the authors = would > also be appreciated. > > There are three things that I'd like to point out here: > > 1) There is no ip_id_behavior control field in the FN of RFC 5225. = Only > ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. > > 2) Not to include the control field for outer IPv6 headers is the = actual > bug fix. There does not exist any ip_id_behavior_outer control field = in > the FN for ipv6 (it does for ipv4). > > 3) Excluding the control field for the innermost IPv6 header may be > considered a change and not a correction, but since the whole business > with the ip_id_behavior is not crystal clear... > > So especially number 3) is up for discussion and also my suggestion = for > the Corrected Text. > > cheers, > > /Calle > > On 02/03/2011 01:52 PM, Lars Eggert wrote: >> Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community consensus is = to approve this? >> >> On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: >> >>> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, >>> "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, = UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D5225&eid=3D2703 >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Type: Technical >>> Reported by: Carl Knutsson >>> >>> Section: 6.6.11 >>> >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the compressible >>> >>> header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet >>> >>> consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>> >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header except the >>> >>> innermost in the compressible header chain starting from the = outermost >>> >>> header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of = zeroes. >>> >>> >>> >>> o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost header is an >>> >>> IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of = zeroes. >>> >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the document. = There are two control fields related to IP-ID behavior, = ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the = ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is always = IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This makes it impossible to = include ip_id_behavior_outer when calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. = Furthermore, since the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no = sense to include it in the crc calculation. >>> >>> Instructions: >>> ------------- >>> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): = Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite >>> Publication Date : April 2008 >>> Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund >>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>> Source : Robust Header Compression >>> Area : Transport >>> Stream : IETF >>> Verifying Party : IESG >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc > From rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org Thu Feb 3 20:55:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4D43A6AFF for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:55:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9vo4jE8Bd6wt for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from whataboutbob.org (netblock-72-25-108-170.dslextreme.com [72.25.108.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A70A3A6AF8 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4CC8732169; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.75] (unknown [192.168.3.24]) by whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6DE987315C9; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:59:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4B879C.90402@whataboutbob.org> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:59:08 -0800 From: rstangarone-ietf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110" References: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3579@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> In-Reply-To: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3579@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rohc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 04:55:48 -0000 I've also discussed this with Sasha offline, I'll take a look at the errata again and give you some input shortly. Bob On 02/03/2011 08:18 AM, Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110 wrote: > Calle's correction looks good to me. Thank you, Calle. > > -Sasha > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Carl Knutsson wrote: >> Lars, others, >> >> I have had an on-list discussion with Sasha and an off-list with >> Kristofer and I have come up with the suggested correction. The actual >> details of the suggestion in the errata haven't been discussed. So I >> would like people to review the errata. Comments from the authors would >> also be appreciated. >> >> There are three things that I'd like to point out here: >> >> 1) There is no ip_id_behavior control field in the FN of RFC 5225. Only >> ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. >> >> 2) Not to include the control field for outer IPv6 headers is the actual >> bug fix. There does not exist any ip_id_behavior_outer control field in >> the FN for ipv6 (it does for ipv4). >> >> 3) Excluding the control field for the innermost IPv6 header may be >> considered a change and not a correction, but since the whole business >> with the ip_id_behavior is not crystal clear... >> >> So especially number 3) is up for discussion and also my suggestion for >> the Corrected Text. >> >> cheers, >> >> /Calle >> >> On 02/03/2011 01:52 PM, Lars Eggert wrote: >>> Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community consensus is to approve this? >>> >>> On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, >>>> "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> You may review the report below and at: >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=2703 >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Type: Technical >>>> Reported by: Carl Knutsson >>>> >>>> Section: 6.6.11 >>>> >>>> Original Text >>>> ------------- >>>> o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the compressible >>>> >>>> header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet >>>> >>>> consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>>> >>>> Corrected Text >>>> -------------- >>>> o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header except the >>>> >>>> innermost in the compressible header chain starting from the outermost >>>> >>>> header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost header is an >>>> >>>> IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>>> >>>> Notes >>>> ----- >>>> There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the document. There are two control fields related to IP-ID behavior, ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is always IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This makes it impossible to include ip_id_behavior_outer when calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. Furthermore, since the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no sense to include it in the crc calculation. >>>> >>>> Instructions: >>>> ------------- >>>> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite >>>> Publication Date : April 2008 >>>> Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund >>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>>> Source : Robust Header Compression >>>> Area : Transport >>>> Stream : IETF >>>> Verifying Party : IESG >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rohc mailing list >> Rohc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc From ghyslain@live.se Thu Feb 3 05:55:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32613A6970 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:55:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jaN4vZXVkxI for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:55:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bay0-omc3-s18.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc3-s18.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.190.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA303A696F for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from BAY146-DS2 ([65.54.190.189]) by bay0-omc3-s18.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:58:32 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.194.250.99] X-Originating-Email: [ghyslain@live.se] Message-ID: From: "Ghyslain Pelletier" To: "Kristofer Sandlund" , "Lars Eggert" , References: <20110203122200.A4749E06B4@rfc-editor.org> <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD1013E9FCFE83@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD1013E9FCFE83@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:58:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2011 13:58:32.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[716B1190:01CBC3AA] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:49:41 -0800 Cc: David Harrington Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:19:01 -0000 Similar to Kristofer, I am also no longer subscribed to the ROHC list and no longer follow discussions in that forum. I also agree with the proposed update. ///Ghyslain -------------------------------------------------- From: "Kristofer Sandlund" Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:26 AM To: "Lars Eggert" ; Cc: "David Harrington" ; Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) > Ongoing discussion? I'm no longer subscribed to the rohc list (and I'm > quite sure my co-author doesn't read it either), so I don't know of > anything that has been discussed there. > > But I have previously discussed the below issue with Calle and I agree > with his suggested update. > > /Kristofer > > at den 3 februari 2011 13:52, Lars Eggert wrote : >> Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community >> consensus is to approve this? >> >> On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: >> >> > >> > The following errata report has been submitted for >> > RFC5225, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): >> > Profiles for >> RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >> > >> > -------------------------------------- >> > You may review the report below and at: >> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=2703 >> > >> > -------------------------------------- >> > Type: Technical >> > Reported by: Carl Knutsson >> > >> > Section: 6.6.11 >> > >> > Original Text >> > ------------- >> > o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the >> > compressible >> > >> > header chain starting from the outermost header. >> > Each octet >> > >> > consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >> > >> > Corrected Text >> > -------------- >> > o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header >> > except the >> > >> > innermost in the compressible header chain starting >> > from >> the outermost >> > >> > header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 >> > MSBs >> of zeroes. >> > >> > >> > >> > o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost >> header is an >> > >> > IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with >> > 6 >> MSBs of zeroes. >> > >> > Notes >> > ----- >> > There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the >> document. There are two control fields related to IP-ID >> behavior, ip_id_behavior_innermost and >> ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the >> ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is >> always IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This >> makes it impossible to include ip_id_behavior_outer when >> calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. Furthermore, since >> the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no >> sense to include it in the crc calculation. >> > >> > Instructions: >> > ------------- >> > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If >> > necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it >> > should be verified or rejected. When a decision is >> > reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to >> > change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> > >> > -------------------------------------- >> > RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) >> > -------------------------------------- >> > Title : RObust Header Compression Version >> > 2 >> (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite >> > Publication Date : April 2008 >> > Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund >> > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> > Source : Robust Header Compression >> > Area : Transport >> > Stream : IETF >> > Verifying Party : IESG From pranav.savkur@gmail.com Thu Feb 10 21:13:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9513A6870 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:13:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGxQkBuc9xMm for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397B63A6857 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so3115827bwz.31 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:13:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=2VToXr9WXw/t2ZZCUrZwNjqmlZ4r+QSXQB+p1INNb8c=; b=xjq+V2Cn+w8lmVOZAaaoilNUluGpUx5jbqgnrV2AOrDGra41ubJ8dTkCtJIoPngzuv clvz4kHGV6/4Cb1oRujytbSWXPi82To3AwU5FJREQ7vSRM0p5v8OBhmCxPUhJN8XAm7D rVMRWUMxijChHaTEpW0axnoyzutxj5wvMtu/s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=dlAaEOeij3QFdt2Iwvolyp/WYCF5nGzee4nrJ+7b/tGno/XzeO77l0h52KFd+KMH2e KYclYDoWlnfY6H1u5q3wKE5wRdAwcKEpvt1YNw2wmpAyhRdwAQKxRFUhSZ6E4wGwHwgp 9hAcN8ZYNsyNzEdGkvOt+DfRgixLD777WZw8Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.119.75 with SMTP id y11mr59447bkq.18.1297401222353; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:13:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.59.147 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:13:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:43:42 +0530 Message-ID: From: Pranav Savkur To: rohc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d59eacfd5402049bfac271 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:55:39 -0800 Subject: [rohc] RoHC for RTP/UDP/IP: significance of TSC flag X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 05:14:21 -0000 --0016e6d59eacfd5402049bfac271 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 hello, what is the significance of the TSC flag during compression/decompression? -Pranav --0016e6d59eacfd5402049bfac271 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 hello, what is the significance of the TSC flag during compression/decompression?
-Pranav
--0016e6d59eacfd5402049bfac271-- From r.ranjithme@gmail.com Mon Feb 21 07:38:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF833A7134 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:38:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fzyhPw0dMi7y for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:38:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vw0-f42.google.com (mail-vw0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E973A713C for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:38:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so1742974vws.15 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:39:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=zyJjQlBeIq3fCM/7M4wMHEQMZzu1nh/00MUJcE++Sd8=; b=cYJjPohmi27LLGkv7RxICKQYV6HI1b82q3LzRe7j9AYI4bMoiU5wcf3GxuiYJMQQ35 ywMD9aOaUHD3HrQ0rRHqKBTf5nlMLlql9IJv+1W+wRksMZB9PzgTvDOcl+/gfIlwJf3k VT3HE9rLlHrGvHlYlKKNnSgKqr8hv9Ht8eGJE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=GEaw0Nf9mMIBftoAhVdoU9ecL0MhBhqiTjAJVEED0FUzrJ2Ym7aUqbfX+uLstuD9Uw dtqljWPkzVYApC7OVTlCefZeFC/0d2s+cZI9enqgXwjxa/FSPu1gWb1RMwGrDtdqNu6U oKXjFmZRAYd0V5GUQUwMPsRSY52JWILyAVqwQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.167.164 with SMTP id zp4mr2056712vdb.305.1298302699325; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.14.208 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:38:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:08:19 +0530 Message-ID: From: R Ranjith kumar To: resumes@birlasoft.com, resumes@india.hp.com, revathi.atp@gmail.com, rohc@ietf.org, rrkvlr@yahoo.co.in, saisss85@gmail.com, saiss85@gmail.com, apsajeeth@rediffmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [rohc] 5 X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:38:56 -0000 ..Never late to change your life! http://mikeyjetadore.free.fr/2011.php?yahooID=5161 -- Ranjith Kumar. R [image: tiger walking]